Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Campitor wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:19 pm

I assume those 8 months refer to a medical bill in India.

BRUTE wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:31 pm

fiby41 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:31 am

Me: The market will regulate itself!

^^

$404 if brute has calculated correctly. not that bad.

It is part of a comic strip with that exact figure in dollars.
Posts with embedded memes/comics are deleted by supreme leader. So I typed it out. Out of habit I might have reached out for the INR symbol while transcribing.

There is another version of the comic in which the reason the protagonist ended up in a hospital was because he was shouting the above quoted slogan.

BRUTE wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:29 pm

so clearly this former dystopia was libertarian, right?

If this is an acceptable limit to relevant discussion, then it must go both ways and logically we cannot discuss libertarianism at all, because it has never existed.

My point in bringing up those things was that IMO human nature =/= noble savages that await their liberation. We are capable of good and evil. If libertarianism makes the case that freedom is the Ultimate Value (to which all other values must be absolutely subjugated), it should as a proposed ideology also address the evils of society. Not on a general level, but on the level of practicable solutions. Certainly freedom is a great, great value. But I personally maintain that it can only be a part of a system of values that needs to be carefully designed.

BRUTE wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:29 pm

brute is cynical about feel-good laws and moral outrage. he is inclined to think that humans are going to human no matter what the law is, and he likes to look at actual development instead of good intentions.

You seem to be in agreement with me that there will always be evil in society. You point to a laissez-fare solution. I respect your opinion, but I am not convinced by it. I also suspect that you would think differently about this is your underage kid would be at the other end of a mutually consensual pederasty agreement. Or perhaps when you get older and develop Alzheimer's and have no living relatives (and even if you did, it's not their problem).

What I'm saying is, don't be terribly surprised that other people oppose these ideas. They're perhaps great for you right now, but not for them. We all enter this world very vulnerable and usually also exit it that way. But I think it's a good thing that there is a group of people who fervently talk about personal freedoms. Freedom is an important value.

BRUTE wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:29 pm

does Finn want to guess which political/economic system makes countries rich?

Well it cannot be libertarianism, since it's never existed. Libertarianism =/= capitalism. Also, I think it's pretty safe to say that people are normally pro-capitalism on this forum. I certainly am. I look at capitalism as a vital tool. Not a religion (absolute good).

May I ask what's the libertarian view of the armed forces? Public or private?

ThisDinosaur wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:55 am

@Finn
A libertarian would be very cynical about suggestions to tax *other people* as a way to solve problems.
"Some one should DO something about this! Not me though. Tax the rich! They can afford it."

Yes, by definition, the person is surely anti-taxes if they are a libertarian. This is a truism.

@BRUTE:

What I meant about the nannies is that I believe that the combination of a pure libertarian system and a high level of technology would lead to human reproduction rates below replacement, until the population density became so low that the technology would no longer be maintainable. IOW, what is appealing about libertarian phil0sophy is exactly what is being marketed in an ad I recently saw for a new low estrogen birth control pill "Because you know that morning sex doesn't have to lead to morning sickness..." starring attractive, affluent, hip, young female and her very good-looking male morning sex bed partner.

@Finn

Why does libertarianism need to bear the burden of addressing the evils of society on the level of practical solutions?

Well, if it can't, why talk about it?

This is an evaluation that would be better done on a case by case basis. And do you, Riggerjack, of all people, think a single court with an "impartial judge" is best to decide in favor of consumers and industry against the common man?

Ultimately, yes, I do. Whatever the system, someone has to judge the edge cases. I believe that is best done in courtrooms, as that is where the most information can be presented by both sides. And superior and supreme Courts to review the cases.

The reality of court cases is far different from what FB and the Atlantic tell us. It's not the 5/4 red/blue or blue/ red split that they talk about. I have been disappointed by Thomas, and occasionally impressed by Sotomayor. I miss Scalia, I didn't often agree with him, but there were some real gems in his dissents.

If you have a better system, I'm all ears, but I haven't found a way to consistently improve this system.

If the productive part of the population is distributed more like a Poisson distribution, not like a Gaussian, then the majority of the productivity would have to be carried by the absolutely most productive individuals. To make their money society's money you'd have to tax the SHIT out of them, which would then likely cause them to leverage their resources and divert their money where it won't be stolen from them. You know, like we're already seeing.

Really? You can't imagine how money could flow from rich people to the rest of society, without taxing them? Have you considered what happens when they... Spend it? And how this could do the same thing you describe, with less waste?

And that's why we need this thread. All of our systems are set to congregate power. All our thinking is shaped by that. Most people can't imagine a system of voluntary participation, because we are raised in systems of coercion. Even thinking of freedom is hard.

The internet has started to transform society and industry. Free, widespread communication has a leveling effect on hierarchies. This will eventually need to be addressed in government. Working out the difficulties in forums like this will aid those efforts, when the time is right.

Riggerjack wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:24 am

If the productive part of the population is distributed more like a Poisson distribution, not like a Gaussian, then the majority of the productivity would have to be carried by the absolutely most productive individuals. To make their money society's money you'd have to tax the SHIT out of them, which would then likely cause them to leverage their resources and divert their money where it won't be stolen from them. You know, like we're already seeing.

Really? You can't imagine how money could flow from rich people to the rest of society, without taxing them? Have you considered what happens when they... Spend it? And how this could do the same thing you describe, with less waste?

Yes I CAN imagine that, as a matter of fact. I thought that I clarified my point in another post. I was quite certain I pointed out that we not only need, but RELY on wealth disparity to drive progress right now. In some vaguely communicated sense we're living off of the 'friction' of extreme wealth.

Notice that I didn't actually call it a bad thing. Your knee-jerk reaction assumed that I disagree with you.

Well that or my written communication is worse than it usually is. Try re-reading my post and see if it's still presented from a socialist stance

I'm not calling you a socialist. Or a Socialist.

I'm referring to the statement of "taxing the shit out of" productive people. This is pretty much where we are currently, common thought is that taxing and redistributing wealth is the only way we keep the aristocracy from solidifying and locking iron collars on the rest of us. Look at the objections raised in this thread so far.

I am not sure that is wrong, but I am willing to think about it. It certainly seems wrong.

Also, I was quoting you specifically, cuz you are a badass who can defend your ground. You will come back and better define your position, rather than flouncing out. A quality I for one, greatly appreciate.

Riggerjack wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:57 am

Code: Select all

Why does libertarianism need to bear the burden of addressing the evils of society on the level of practical solutions? 

Well, if it can't, why talk about it?

I was comparing to the current system that fails to reach that level of scrutiny.

I think, overall, libertarianism is the morally superior solution.

Finn wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:30 am

My point in bringing up those things was that IMO human nature =/= noble savages that await their liberation.

this point always confuses brute. brute does not think humans are super moral noble savages. the reason brute prefers libertarianism is BECAUSE humans are going to human, have lesser instincts, are corrupted by power, and so on.

the whole point is that decentralizing power away from a central monopoly (the state) will restrict the dark side in humans.

separation of the government into three branches is a good thing vs. combining all of them in a king or dictator. no one human/group can grab all three and abuse the total power of the state.

the founders had a somewhat realistic-pessimistic view of humans here.

brute's view is even more pessimistic: clearly, power needs to be broken up even more, because even with 3 branches of government, lots of abuses are happening.

Finn wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:30 am

May I ask what's the libertarian view of the armed forces? Public or private?

various views. minarchists claim that national defense is one of the 3 responsibilities of the state (police, law, military). anarcho-capitalists think that armed forces as nation states maintain them are an inefficient solution at best, and typically do more harm than good.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:12 am

What I meant about the nannies is that I believe that the combination of a pure libertarian system and a high level of technology would lead to human reproduction rates below replacement, until the population density became so low that the technology would no longer be maintainable.

sure, at which point having children would become immensely valuable and humans would do it again. why wouldn't there be an equilibrium like for the production of any other good or service?

@Brute, wrt Singapore, it has achieved incredible economic growth and does have a low tax base, limited government spending and very favourable conditions for foreign investors. Yet it’s not only ruled by an oppressive government (more than just banning chewing gum, but engaged in widespread censorship and suppression of political dissent) but one which has also engaged in blatant market invention. Government owned companies play a very significant role in the economy, it has a huge sovereign wealth fund, 80% of the housing stock was built and is owned by the government, as is 90% of the land. Is also engages in very careful social engineering, carefully controlling its citizens finances and spending decisions.

This is not necessarily a bad thing; it’s a safe, wealthy, socially cohesive society, and has been used as a model for China and other Asian nations. Yet it’s bizarre the likes of the Cato institute cite the country as shining example of ‘free-trade’ and ‘small-government’ when it’s anything but. It’s a hybrid combining elements of very pro-market policies with very statist, socialist policies,

Now you can say that Singapore is a bit of an oddity, and a small city state isn’t really comparable to, say, a G8 nation. Yet no developed country has successfully followed a libertarian economic model, which leads me to be very sceptical about its value as an idea, particularly for developing nations.

chenda wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:09 pm

Yet no developed country has successfully followed a libertarian economic model, which leads me to be very sceptical about its value as an idea, particularly for developing nations.

brute would agree that most countries are just not there yet. certain things make being a country easier - wealth, social cohesion, geography, luck. being a small country seems to help with social cohesion (also see: every political system works in Scandinavia, no matter how shitty the system is).

so brute is not exactly holding his breath for a libertarian utopia. but countries seem better than others in the ways that they are more libertarian. the good parts about Singapore are the libertarian parts. the bad parts about Singapore are the non-libertarian parts.

since brute is not waiting for the binary "definitely 100% libertarian utopia" state, he's content appreciating a little piece of libertarianism here or there, be it lower taxes, freedom of speech, or whatever.

BRUTE wrote:sure, at which point having children would become immensely valuable and humans would do it again. why wouldn't there be an equilibrium like for the production of any other good or service?

Because the human children would own themselves, so nobody would directly profit from this production.

Equilibriums exist for only short periods in any economy. Most of the time is spent in oversupply or undersupply conditions.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:16 am

Because the human children would own themselves, so nobody would directly profit from this production.

brute disagrees. other humans tend to profit from high enough reproduction rates even if these human children own themselves.

historically, parents have tended to make better decisions about how many children to have than governments. also see: china, india.

and has 7Wannabe5 thought about what the alternative would be? a system in which humans are made to have children because some authority determined they're not having enough?

Both China and India have far too many people right now; India's population is, in fact, still growing.

Such a massive world population is, in turn, placing great stress upon the world's resources to support such a large population. It doesn't appear that parents (or would be parents) are actually making good choices concerning how many children to have. On a world scale, they're making the decision to have too many.

Having a system in place to regulate the population to prevent an excessively large population of humans seems like good ol common sense to me.

BRUTE wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:56 pm

and has 7Wannabe5 thought about what the alternative would be? a system in which humans are made to have children because some authority determined they're not having enough?

East Germany in the '70s & '80s recommended large families. I don't think there were any incentives beyond "do the right thing", so it didn't really happen AFAIK.